Hazardously drinking women leaving jail: time to first drink

Reimbursing incarcerated individuals for participation in research: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Little is known about global practices regarding the provision of reimbursement for the participation of people who are incarcerated in research. To determine current practices related to the reimbursement of incarcerated populations for research, we aimed to describe international variations in practice across countries and carceral environments to help inform the development of more consistent and equitable practices.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review by searching PubMed, Cochrane library, Medline, and Embase, and conducted a grey literature search for English- and French-language articles published until September 30, 2022. All studies evaluating any carceral-based research were included if recruitment of incarcerated participants occurred inside any non-juvenile carceral setting; we excluded studies if recruitment occurred exclusively following release. Where studies failed to indicate the presence or absence of reimbursement, we assumed none was provided.

RESULTS

A total of 4,328 unique articles were identified, 2,765 were eligible for full text review, and 426 were included. Of these, 295 (69%) did not offer reimbursement to incarcerated individuals. A minority (n = 13; 4%) included reasons explaining the absence of reimbursement, primarily government-level policies (n = 7). Among the 131 (31%) studies that provided reimbursement, the most common form was monetary compensation (n = 122; 93%); five studies (4%) offered possible reduced sentencing. Reimbursement ranged between $3-610 USD in total and 14 studies (11%) explained the reason behind the reimbursements, primarily researchers' discretion (n = 9).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of research conducted to date in carceral settings globally has not reimbursed incarcerated participants. Increased transparency regarding reimbursement (or lack thereof) is needed as part of all carceral research and advocacy efforts are required to change policies prohibiting reimbursement of incarcerated individuals. Future work is needed to co-create international standards for the equitable reimbursement of incarcerated populations in research, incorporating the voices of people with lived and living experience of incarceration.

Motivational interviewing for substance use reduction

BACKGROUND

Substance use is a global issue, with around 30 to 35 million individuals estimated to have a substance-use disorder. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a client-centred method that aims to strengthen a person's motivation and commitment to a specific goal by exploring their reasons for change and resolving ambivalence, in an atmosphere of acceptance and compassion. This review updates the 2011 version by Smedslund and colleagues.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of motivational interviewing for substance use on the extent of substance use, readiness to change, and retention in treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 18 electronic databases, six websites, four mailing lists, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. The last search dates were in February 2021 and November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with individuals using drugs, alcohol, or both. Interventions were MI or motivational enhancement therapy (MET), delivered individually and face to face. Eligible control interventions were no intervention, treatment as usual, assessment and feedback, or other active intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane, and assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We conducted meta-analyses for the three outcomes (extent of substance use, readiness to change, retention in treatment) at four time points (post-intervention, short-, medium-, and long-term follow-up).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 93 studies with 22,776 participants. MI was delivered in one to nine sessions. Session durations varied, from as little as 10 minutes to as long as 148 minutes per session, across included studies. Study settings included inpatient and outpatient clinics, universities, army recruitment centres, veterans' health centres, and prisons. We judged 69 studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain and 24 studies to be at low or unclear risk. Comparing MI to no intervention revealed a small to moderate effect of MI in substance use post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.89; I2 = 75%; 6 studies, 471 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect was weaker at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.28; 19 studies, 3351 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This comparison revealed a difference in favour of MI at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.20; 16 studies, 3137 participants; low-certainty evidence) and no difference at long-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.25; 9 studies, 1525 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.22; 5 studies, 1495 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Retention in treatment was slightly higher with MI (SMD 0.26, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.52; 2 studies, 427 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparing MI to treatment as usual revealed a very small negative effect in substance use post-intervention (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.02; 5 studies, 976 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.17; 14 studies, 3066 participants), a very small benefit of MI at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22; 9 studies, 1624 participants), and no difference at long-term follow-up (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.17; 8 studies, 1449 participants), all with low-certainty evidence. There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.39; 2 studies, 150 participants) and retention in treatment (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.16; 5 studies, 1295 participants), both with very low-certainty evidence. Comparing MI to assessment and feedback revealed no difference in substance use at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.23; 7 studies, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence). A small benefit for MI was shown at medium-term (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.40; 6 studies, 688 participants) and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41; 3 studies, 448 participants), both with moderate-certainty evidence. None of the studies in this comparison measured substance use at the post-intervention time point, readiness to change, and retention in treatment. Comparing MI to another active intervention revealed no difference in substance use at any follow-up time point, all with low-certainty evidence: post-intervention (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.29; 3 studies, 338 participants); short-term (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.13; 18 studies, 2795 participants); medium-term (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.17; 15 studies, 2352 participants); and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.13; 10 studies, 1908 participants). There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.30; 5 studies, 988 participants; low-certainty evidence) and retention in treatment (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.14; 12 studies, 1945 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to inconsistency, study limitations, publication bias, and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Motivational interviewing may reduce substance use compared with no intervention up to a short follow-up period. MI probably reduces substance use slightly compared with assessment and feedback over medium- and long-term periods. MI may make little to no difference to substance use compared to treatment as usual and another active intervention. It is unclear if MI has an effect on readiness to change and retention in treatment. The studies included in this review were heterogeneous in many respects, including the characteristics of participants, substance(s) used, and interventions. Given the widespread use of MI and the many studies examining MI, it is very important that counsellors adhere to and report quality conditions so that only studies in which the intervention implemented was actually MI are included in evidence syntheses and systematic reviews. Overall, we have moderate to no confidence in the evidence, which forces us to be careful about our conclusions. Consequently, future studies are likely to change the findings and conclusions of this review.

Randomized controlled trial of twelve-step volunteer linkage for women with alcohol use disorder leaving jail

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use disorder predicts poor health outcomes among women returning to the community from jail. Twelve-step self-help groups are free and accessible to women leaving jail, but reaching out to strangers can pose a barrier. Pilot work suggested that a volunteer-led "warm handoff" may increase post-release twelve-step self-help group attendance.

METHODS

This randomized trial evaluated the effectiveness of a warm handoff intervention on post-release twelve-step attendance and alcohol use. Participants (189 women with alcohol use disorder) were recruited in jail and followed for 6 months after release. Participants were randomized to: (1) a warm handoff, in which a female twelve-step volunteer met with each woman individually in jail and the same volunteer attended the woman's first twelve-step meeting with her after release; or (2) enhanced standard care (a list of meetings and community resources). Outcomes included days abstinent from alcohol, drinks per drinking day, alcohol-related problems, twelve-step attendance, twelve-step affiliation, network support for abstinence, number of unprotected sexual occasions, and drug using days.

RESULTS

Among intervention participants, only 66 % were aware that the volunteer tried to contact them after jail, only 38 % reported post-jail contact with their volunteers (typically phone), and only four went to meetings with their volunteers post-release. Of 8 post-release outcomes, intervention effects differed on only one (alcohol-related problems).

CONCLUSION

Although twelve-step self-help group attendance predicted alcohol abstinence, the volunteer-led warm handoff intervention did not increase twelve-step attendance. The twelve-step tradition of Attraction may inhibit the active outreach required to connect women to services after jail release.

Study protocol: Community Links to Establish Alcohol Recovery (CLEAR) for women leaving jail

PURPOSE

This article describes the protocol for a randomized effectiveness trial of a method to link alcohol use disordered women who are in pretrial jail detention with post-release 12-step mutual help groups.

BACKGROUND

Jails serve 15 times more people per year than do prisons and have very short stays, posing few opportunities for treatment or treatment planning. Alcohol use is associated with poor post-jail psychosocial and health outcomes including sexually transmitted diseases and HIV, especially for women. At least weekly 12-step self-help group attendance in the months after release from jail has been associated with improvements in alcohol use and alcohol-related consequences. Linkage strategies improve 12-step attendance and alcohol outcomes among outpatients, but have not previously been tested in criminal justice populations.

DESIGN

In the intervention condition, a 12-step volunteer meets once individually with an incarcerated woman while she is in jail and arranges to be in contact after release to accompany her to 12-step meetings. The control condition provides schedules for local 12-step meetings. Outcomes include percent days abstinent from alcohol (primary), 12-step meeting involvement, and fewer unprotected sexual occasions (secondary) after release from jail. We hypothesize that (Minton, 2015) 12-step involvement will mediate the intervention's effect on alcohol use, and (O'Brien, 2001) percent days abstinent will mediate the intervention's effect on STI/HIV risk-taking outcomes. Research methods accommodate logistical and philosophical hurdles including rapid turnover of commitments and unpredictable release times at the jail, possible post-randomization ineligibility due to sentencing, 12-step principles such as Nonaffiliation, and use of volunteers as interventionists.

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of interventions to improve the health of persons during imprisonment and in the year after release

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials of interventions to improve the health of people during imprisonment or in the year after release. We searched 14 biomedical and social science databases in 2014, and identified 95 studies. Most studies involved only men or a majority of men (70/83 studies in which gender was specified); only 16 studies focused on adolescents. Most studies were conducted in the United States (n = 57). The risk of bias for outcomes in almost all studies was unclear or high (n = 91). In 59 studies, interventions led to improved mental health, substance use, infectious diseases, or health service utilization outcomes; in 42 of these studies, outcomes were measured in the community after release. Improving the health of people who experience imprisonment requires knowledge generation and knowledge translation, including implementation of effective interventions.

HIV prevention for adults with criminal justice involvement: a systematic review of HIV risk-reduction interventions in incarceration and community settings

We summarized and appraised evidence regarding HIV prevention interventions for adults with criminal justice involvement. We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials that evaluated an HIV prevention intervention, enrolled participants with histories of criminal justice involvement, and reported biological or behavioral outcomes. We used Cochrane methods to screen 32,271 citations from 16 databases and gray literature. We included 37 trials enrolling n = 12,629 participants. Interventions were 27 psychosocial, 7 opioid substitution therapy, and 3 HIV-testing programs. Eleven programs significantly reduced sexual risk taking, 4 reduced injection drug risks, and 4 increased testing. Numerous interventions may reduce HIV-related risks among adults with criminal justice involvement. Future research should consider process evaluations, programs involving partners or families, and interventions integrating biomedical, psychosocial, and structural approaches.

Forced smoking abstinence: not enough for smoking cessation

IMPORTANCE

Millions of Americans are forced to quit smoking as they enter tobacco-free prisons and jails, but most return to smoking within days of release. Interventions are needed to sustain tobacco abstinence after release from incarceration.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the extent to which the WISE intervention (Working Inside for Smoking Elimination), based on motivational interviewing (MI) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), decreases relapse to smoking after release from a smoke-free prison.

DESIGN

Participants were recruited approximately 8 weeks prior to their release from a smoke-free prison and randomized to 6 weekly sessions of either education videos (control) or the WISE intervention.

SETTING

A tobacco-free prison in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 262 inmates (35% female).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Continued smoking abstinence was defined as 7-day point-prevalence abstinence validated by urine cotinine measurement.

RESULTS

At the 3-week follow-up, 25% of participants in the WISE intervention (31 of 122) and 7% of the control participants (9 of 125) continued to be tobacco abstinent (odds ratio [OR], 4.4; 95% CI, 2.0-9.7). In addition to the intervention, Hispanic ethnicity, a plan to remain abstinent, and being incarcerated for more than 6 months were all associated with increased likelihood of remaining abstinent. In the logistic regression analysis, participants randomized to the WISE intervention were 6.6 times more likely to remain tobacco abstinent at the 3-week follow up than those randomized to the control condition (95% CI, 2.5-17.0). Nonsmokers at the 3-week follow-up had an additional follow-up 3 months after release, and overall 12% of the participants in the WISE intervention (14 of 122) and 2% of the control participants (3 of 125) were tobacco free at 3 months, as confirmed by urine cotinine measurement (OR, 5.3; 95% CI, 1.4-23.8).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Forced tobacco abstinence alone during incarceration has little impact on postrelease smoking status. A behavioral intervention provided prior to release greatly improves cotinine-confirmed smoking cessation in the community.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01122589.

Motivational interviewing with computer assistance as an intervention to empower women to make contraceptive choices while incarcerated: study protocol for randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are important and costly public health problems in the United States resulting from unprotected sexual intercourse. Risk factors for unplanned pregnancies and STIs (poverty, low educational attainment, homelessness, substance abuse, lack of health insurance, history of an abusive environment, and practice of commercial sex work) are especially high among women with a history of incarceration. Project CARE (Contraceptive Awareness and Reproductive Education) is designed to evaluate an innovative intervention, motivational interviewing with computer assistance (MICA), aimed at enhancing contraceptive initiation and maintenance among incarcerated women who do not want a pregnancy within the next year and who are anticipated to be released back to the community. This study aims to: (1) increase the initiation of highly effective contraceptives while incarcerated; (2) increase the continuation of highly effective contraceptive use at 3, 6, 9, and 12  months after release; and (3) decrease unsafe sexual activity.

METHODS/DESIGN

This randomized controlled trial will recruit 400 women from the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RI DOC) women's jail at risk for an unplanned pregnancy (that is, sexually active with men and not planning/wanting to become pregnant in the next year). They will be randomized to two interventions: a control group who receive two educational videos (on contraception, STIs, and pre-conception counseling) or a treatment group who receive two sessions of personalized MICA. MICA is based on the principles of the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) and on Motivational Interviewing (MI), an empirically supported counseling technique designed to enhance readiness to change targeted behaviors. Women will be followed at 3, 6, 9, and 12  months post release and assessed for STIs, pregnancy, and reported condom use.

DISCUSSION

Results from this study are expected to enhance our understanding of the efficacy of MICA to enhance contraceptive initiation and maintenance and reduce sexual risk-taking behaviors among incarcerated women who have re-entered the community.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01132950.